So...I still keep reading articles about global warming...er climate change...er environmental shifts...er...whatever they're calling it now. And "overwhelming" data and evidence. I assume those that provide the "overwhelming" evidence and data are professionals and have done much research. They say, taking an objective look, one has no choice but come to the conclusion that fossil fuels and human activity are causing it. They say how dare we disagree. The data is so clear. When they see a Hummer SUV, or Ford F250, or V8 gas guzzling sports car....they say those cars are killing the planet. The data is clear, right? They say the coal plants are killing the planet. The studies and data clearly show it. Right?

Well, why is it that, such as the Trayvon Martin case, the FBI and all police agencies can provide pure, hard data....clearly studied and collected by the professionals, the highest level of law enforcement (FBI), under a black president, and a black top cop- DOJ head Eric Holder......................why is it that if the data says that while the black population makes up a small % of our population, they commit an "overwhelming" % of violent crimes relative to their demographics total population?

Why is it they find it ok to "profile" a certain type of car or industry....based on hard data......but find it absolutely shocking, damning, and nearly worth the death penalty to dare make a profile based on crime statistics????????????????

Some say it's profiling. I say it's looking at hard data, and focusing our attention on the problem areas and problem individuals. I say thats the only way to stop the trend. I say the only way we can address this problem is to look at what or who is causing most of the problem. Then make laws or take proactive action to interrupt this activity, address these individuals, even if it inconveniences a few others.

Oh, I'm talking about climate change in that last paragraph. Profiling for crime prevention is as wicked as the devils toe.

Actually...now that I think about it...the cop haters profile cops as a whole just for the actions of a few. Then have the nerve to day we must buy into global warming based on overwhelming evidence, while also saying we must NEVER recognize overwhelming statistics on criminal activity when addressing crime. Hmmm.

Why then do liberals support regulating carbon emissions but do not support pursuing racially discriminating policies (ie, profiling) in law enforcement?

First, I must take issue with your first premise. The statistics to which you refer, which seem to over-represent blacks (among other reasons, reporting rates are higher in urban areas), show only a 23% representations of blacks in crimes of violence, hardly what I would call "overwhelming" (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0840.pdf). Still, it does appear quite likely that there is a genuine correlation between race and (actual rather than inherent) criminality.

Additionally, you seem to be mis-characterizing your uncited liberal viewpoint. I don't know of anyone who thinks that racial profiling is "nearly worth the death penalty". I'm sure you're being deliberately hyperbolic, but it makes it hard for me to understand your true position.

Putting these issues aside, a number of features distinguish racial theories of law enforcement from carbon regulation:

1) Every molecule of carbon has roughly the same effect on climate as does any other. In contrast most blacks do not commit violent crimes. Thus, racial profiling, to the extent that it impacts negatively on blacks, affects innocents in a way that carbon regulation does not.

2) There is substantial evidence that racial profiling has profound negative consequences and does not work very well (in the sense of increasing the rate at which criminals are arrested) in practice. In contrast, there seems little doubt that carbon regulation can control carbon emissions (though perhaps not in an economical way).

3) Racial profiling, linked as it is to the criminal justice system is, as you say, punitive. In contrast, carbon regulation, at least as I envision it, is intended to correct for an economic externality rather than to punish people who use or produce carbon.

I agree with you that sometimes critics of police use the bad acts of a few to unfairly tarnish the whole.

I know here in Oak Ridge, TN there is a "housing project" known as the "Valley". Crack dealers out the ying/yang. I wonder if there is evidence to support this premise, they want to feel for a minute, like a conservative feels every day. Maybe there is a "anger" gene, and it's triggered by having wealth, "thrown up in their faces"?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!